OP-ED: Separatists shouldn't let party politics distract them
Caitlyn Madlener writes, "Regardless of whether one supports separation, it is significant that Premier Smith is willing to let Albertans express themselves."
By: Caitlyn Madlener
Caitlyn Madlener is a former political consultant and activist who has worked both inside and outside formal political organizations. She is now a full-time stay-at-home mother raising her three toddlers.
The clock is ticking.
On October 19, Albertans will vote for the first time in our province’s history on a question that could ultimately lead to separation from Canada.
Yet for some reason, everyone seems unhappy. Naturally, the short-sighted “Ottawa Forever” crowd is furious that the Premier politically outmaneuvered them — though, to be fair, outmaneuvering Thomas Lukaszuk is hardly a towering achievement given his political instincts resemble those of a blind snake slithering into traffic. More surprisingly, however, is that many separatists also seem upset, despite the fact that the political landscape is shifting closer toward their own stated goals.
Following Premier Danielle Smith’s recent speech, calls immediately emerged demanding her resignation. Social media lit up with the familiar chorus of betrayal, cowardice, and political treason that now accompanies virtually every disagreement in modern politics. Alberta conservatives, much like characters in Game of Thrones, appear constitutionally incapable of going more than a few weeks without attempting to depose somebody (not that it isn’t sometimes warranted.)
As someone who once led a campaign to recall Danielle Smith, I understand the instinct.
At the time, I believed Smith had betrayed Alberta voters by denying them a voice on whether the Wildrose Party should merge with the governing Progressive Conservatives. Although recall legislation did not yet exist, the campaign succeeded in placing significant public pressure on Smith and eventually contributed to her resignation.
But whatever one thinks of Danielle Smith, the version of Smith governing today is politically far more cautious than the one who crossed the floor a decade ago. If nothing else, she appears to have learned that Albertans react poorly when decisions are imposed on them from above by people convinced they know better.
That matters.
Because, regardless of whether one supports separation, it is significant that a sitting premier is willing to let Albertans express themselves on the issue rather than declaring the matter too dangerous or inappropriate for public discussion. In modern Canadian politics, merely allowing people to vote on a contentious question is increasingly treated as radical behaviour.
Separatists would do well to remember that.
Becoming consumed by bitter internal party feuds wastes valuable time and energy that should instead be spent persuading voters, organizing locally, and refining messaging. Political movements rarely fail because they lack enough infighting. More often, they collapse because they become so addicted to internal purity tests that they forget the public exists outside the room.
Canadian political parties are deeply reactionary institutions. Unlike American politicians such as President Donald Trump, who at least possesses the confidence to state his views loudly enough to drag the conversation in his direction, Canadian leaders tend to govern like nervous weather vanes, carefully adjusting themselves to whichever breeze sways most favourably that week.
Even in the louder and more theatrical arena of American politics, campaigns are constantly forced to react to external narratives. Every election cycle seems to arrive accompanied by some sudden race riot that reshapes the political battlefield overnight. The lesson is obvious: movements capable of setting the narrative force politicians to respond to them, not the other way around.
We saw exactly this during the last Canadian federal election. What should have been a campaign dominated by affordability, housing, and declining living standards instead became consumed by tariffs—a comparatively narrow issue that suddenly swallowed the entire national conversation. Whether justified or not, the point remains the same: those who control the narrative control the political momentum.
That is where separatists should focus their attention.
Not on kowtowing to the old personal grudges of bitter list-mishandling opportunists eager to burn down the house simply because they were once denied a seat at the table. Some people would happily set themselves and everyone around them on fire if they thought the smoke might inconvenience Danielle Smith on its way upward.
If the stated goal of the separatist movement is independence, then that goal must remain the priority and with the countdown to a vote, their time would be better spent knocking on doors or crafting communications.
Clinging to the resentments of disgruntled former insiders only muddies the message and fractures the coalition required to succeed. More importantly, with a premier presently willing to entertain—even cautiously—the possibility of a constitutional path toward separation, now is probably not the moment to roll the dice on a replacement who may slam that door shut entirely.
Movements do not succeed by confusing tactical frustrations with strategic objectives.
The referendum is approaching.
The clock is ticking.
Separatists should keep their focus on leaving Canada, not on tearing apart the only political environment that currently allows the question to be asked at all.
As someone who once led a recall campaign against Danielle Smith after she crossed the floor to the PC Party, I have sympathy for those frustrated by her decision yesterday, but separatists would be misguided to focus their efforts to depose her instead of getting out the vote.
The clock is ticking on a referendum and separatists should be using their time to wisely achieve their goals instead of being hung up on political grievances.